Transformative Case Declension: The Ablative & The Refraction to Prepository System in Slovene
Inducing Hypothesis
The primary focus of this variation example was an intended paper I drafted in June 2007. It deals with the syntactic variation in the case declension of nouns in Slovene. The variation occurs in Slovene informal speech. It may also be generalised that it frequently occurs in bilingual child speech in Slovene, i.e. if Slovene language is not the single-taught language. The variant is also very frequent with native Slovenians in certain environments, shown last.
Before attempting to describe the phenomenon, let us approach the topic by scrutinising the examples (1) and (2):
(1) ex.: Peter je govoril o temi
structure: SUB (nominal case) + V (auxiliary) + V (past participle) + PREP (instr.) + OBJ (instr. case)
literally: Peter is spoken (active voice) about subject
interpretation: Peter spoke about the subject
(2) ex.: Peter je govoril od teme
structure: SUB (nominal case) + V (auxiliary) + V (past participle) + PREP (non-instr.) + OBJ (gen. case)
literally: Peter is spoken (active voice) of subject’s
interpretation: *Peter spoke of the subject
The examples (1) and (2) both present the dichotomy of the verb phrase structure. (1) outlines a grammatically undisputed, and correct, expression involving the ablative (i.e. the instrumental) case, though (2) is grammatically disputed. The question, that I deal with, is why the paradigm, shown in (2), appears frequently in informal Slovene (here noted as speech).
The verb phrase will be the part of the parse most interesting and captivating in this variable example. The cohesion of the entire verb phrase in Slovene language is case-regulated, or better put, case-formulated. Such valence is well known as the transition, that is, the verb-object interdependence and relation. However, I aim to discuss the transitive nature of the case itself, in the light of the variation it creates.
Case Declension: Repitorium
For us to obtain full view of the observed variation, we should take into account France Bezlaj’s Repitorium on Slavonic Morphology, a crucial work in Slavonic studies. Dealing with case declensions, we must note that both the nominative—expressing the subject—as well as the vocative case—a sort of an interjection—are not cases. All other forms are referred to as casus obliqui. For mutual relation of the abstracts, there are three that are most important:
(a) the accusative, as a case of the object (whereas the nominative is the case of the subject, as explained before),
(b) the dative, as the case of intention (i.e. the indication to whom something is given etc.), and
(c) the genitive case, encompassing all abstracts not previously referred to in the narration. (Bezlaj 1978: 2) However, not all languages have kept all the cases.
The other group of cases involve
(d) the locative—for time and place referral,
(e) instrumental—for means and accompanying referral, and
(f) the ablative case—for source (origin) referral. However, some linguists (notably classical philologists) refer to the entire group of these three cases as the ablative case, being compound of three cases.
All eight cases have remained in the Toharic language. The Slavonic and Baltic languages have replaced the ablative with the genitive case in an early stage. (Bezlaj 1978: 2) The latter replacement is crucial, as I see it, to understanding the present variation shown in (1) and (2). It is also very important to outline Bezlaj’s distinction between (g) analytic and (h) synthetic declension:
(g) in analytic declension, the prepositions have the ability to replace the functions of the cases.
(h) with the case of synthetic declension, the cases function and are used without prepositions.
To say it in other terms, the analytic—unlike the synthetic—declension turns to prepository system. I also see this as a form of the (well-established) Chomskyan Language Economy and Minimalist Programme as the language finds a way to modify the noun in a lessened extent by departing declensive and incorporating prepository features.
Case-sensetiveness & The Syntactic Agglutination
In comparing the modern Indo-European languages’ cases diachronically, we notice that most of them have astonishingly simplified their declension system. In our case of variation, we witness the change from instrumental (i.e. ablative) case to prepository usage with genitive case. A similar phenomenon applies to modern English, for instance, nowadays expressed only as “Saxon genitive”. Compare the following:
(3) Slovene: Tinina miš.
English: “Tina’s mouse”
(4) Slovene: Miš od Tine.
English: “The mouse of Tina.”
We notice here that with the change from (3) to (4) the “syntactic agglutination” and dependence has lessened as the inflectional morphology shows. I think the same principle applies to the Slovene (informal) usage of preposition and genitive case. As both Slavonic and Baltic languages have replaced the true ablative (i.e. the third ablative case, denoting origin) with the genitive, a similar mechanism takes place is Slovene speech. Speakers of Slovene thus usually replace the instrumental case with a true preposition and genitive. In Chomskyan terms:
(5) Regular Instrumental Case = PREP (instrumental) + NP (instrumental case)
(6) Irregular Instrumental Case = PREP (non-instrumental) + NP (genitive case)
The most frequent environment for any (native) Speaker of Slovene, where the variant, formulated in (6), occurs is the personal-interrogative, as shown in (7) and (8).
(7) Standard Slovene: “Čigavo je to?”
English: “Whose is this?”
(8) Non-Standard / Variant Slovene: “Od katerega je to?” (dial. assim. into ‘od kerga je to?’)
English: *“Of whom is this?”
Note that the process in English is just the opposite, as the whom/dative variant is progressively less used. Slovene language and its minimalism finds it easier to do vice versa and compound its case.
Leave a Reply